University of Richmond UR Scholarship Repository
Master's Theses Student Research
1968 Monopolies during the reign of James I. William Charles Thompson
Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.richmond.edu/masters-theses Part of the European History Commons
Recommended Citation Thompson, William Charles, "Monopolies during the reign of James I." (1968). Master's Theses. 1368. https://scholarship.richmond.edu/masters-theses/1368
This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Research at UR Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Master's Theses by an authorized administrator of UR Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. MONOPOLIES DURING THE REIGH OF JAMES l
BY WILLIAM CHARLES TH0HPSOI1
A THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE FACULTY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF RICllHOND Ill CANDIDACY FOR TUE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS Ili HISTORY
Jmm, 1968 COHTEHTS
I Monopolies in Theory and Practice.
II The &lrJ.y Oppositi9n, 1606-1614
III The Parliament or 1621 and the Statuo of Monopolies.
1 Bibliogre.ph7 Autobiography WNOPOLIES IN THEORY AND PRACTICE
When Elizabeth I ascended the throne in 1 S58, she -was confront ed vith a changing economic situation. English industry, which bad for centuries been localized in the towns under guild control, was maturing and becoming national in scope •1 In accordance vi th the prevailing economic precepts of the age, Elizabeth desired to bring industry under a system or national regulation. Such a system or regulation we, however, even for the strongest and most ingen- ious of the Tudor autocrats, e. difficult and elusive goal. Plagued throughout her long reign by a shortage of funds, Elizabeth simply couJ.d not afford to involve the state in public enterprise on its own account.2 Another method of gaining a grip on industry had to be devised., For a sovereign vho possessed ample pover but inadequate financial resources, the most logical course of action was the es tablishment of a system or patents. By granting patents of mo110po:cy, the Queen.cou.1.d assure those Yith the capital to start·a nev industry excluslve privileges on a national scale, thus allo'Wing her aimultan• iw1111am H. Price, The English £a.tents of MonopoJ.y (Boston: Hough tn, Mifnin and Co., 1906), P• • Ibid, p.7. 2 eously to stimulate :industrial development and retain control over it. After a slow start Eliza.beth made grants vith such steadily increasing vigor that by the closing years of the reign her system or patents ho.d become vory widespread indeed. More important, ma.iv 0£ Elizabeth's patent grants constituted a serious annoyance to the public at large. While many patents of' monopo4' were rea.aible or even commendable in theory, vory few proved to be so in practice. The incentive which originally prompted Eliza.beth to grant mo nopoly pa.tents was a genuine desire to stimulate industry and en courage invention, but as tho years passed such legitimate consid erations began to fade, and othera less commendable appeared. The ., .. principal motivation behind the grantin� (?f patents soon became mercena.ry.3 Few grants vere made, much less sought, -which did not promise monetary aggrandizement either to the Crow or to the patentee. Elizaboth took advantage of monopoly grants to both collect and pay off debts, to reward favorites and servants, and to supplement her
royal 1neomes.4 Debtors, creditors, and favorites vho became patentees were scavengers. Their grants amounted to licenseo to bleed the English peop;t.e vith tho blessing of' the Q\leen, who was more than happy to share the profits. Bllt share in tho prof'ito was one thing Elizabeth and later James never real.4r managed to accomplish •. As far as providing a means by vhich to enrich the royal exchequer, the patent eyatem was a dismal failure.
3Ibid, p.14. 4:tbig. p.15. 3 On several different occasions Elizabeth•s parliaments complain• ed of the indignities.and abuses hich w the English people -were suf .. faring at the hands of the patentees and their agents. Because of the iron-gripped control the Queen exercisod over hor parliaments tha proteots of the House of Commons went unheeded for many years. Members who dared even to speak or monopoly abuses were reprimanded.5 Meanwhile, the situation deteriorated to the point where the systea o£ patents might be justly described as an ugly monster, rotten with corruption and abuse.. Finally, in 1601, the monopolies aroused a storm or indignation so great that even Elizabeth had to yield • . She was forced to concede that some of the patents had been abused, and thereupon voided the more obnoxious ones and gave to the courts of law the right to determine the validity of those remaining in force.6 At this point it became clear that Elizabath had stretched her prerogative of interference in thEl matter or trade to the breaking point. Great oppressions bad been practiced in her mme and by, authority of her patents. Under tna.nagement leas adept than hers the widespread indignation aroused by patent abuses might have led
to a political uphea.�1.7 Elizabeth was able to stave orr a challenge to her authority by adroit political maneuvering, but her victory was only e. superficial one. The seeds or discontent over the monopolies
5Ibid, p.20 6Ibid,. p.22 '1-John w. Gordon, Monopolies by Pa tents, and the Sta.tuab],e Ramgdies Available to the Public (London: Stevens and Sons, Ltd., 1897), p.1. 4 were deeply sow,8 and it was lert to Elizabeth•s inexperienced
Scottish successor., James Stuart, to reap their bitter fruit. On /'flp.,y7, 1603, only four days after his arrival in London to assume the throne, James I recalled all patento of monopoly. The proclamation contained a preamble praising the loyalty and devotion or the English people. The body or the deoreo stated that, in con- sidera.tion of this loyalty, Jatnes desired to show hov willing he was and always vould bo to requite the people's love. Realizing tha.t monopolies had constituted a serious grievance to the public during the la.at yoars of ·ttour sister" Elizabeth's reign, Ja:mes demon strated his gratitude by suspendina all [,1Tants and charters of moboply and all "licenses to dispgnse •.dth penal laws, except grants to corporations and companies of arts or 1:misteries• and for enlarging trade until examination can be had of them by tho king with the ad• vice of his Couuoil".9 Because digging for saltpotor ws deemed necessary to the national welfare, patents for this right were'not suspended, although saltpetemen were advised to take special ca.re in the pursuit or their tasks. In view of the abuses ordinarily attendant upon this industry, the exercise of a little care would have been a great improvement indeed. Subjects desiring to petition the king vere advised to do so privately and in an orderly manner.10 It thus appeared that James vould be content, a.t least for a
�J;bid, p.2. Pric�, EnglJ.sh Pa.touts, p.163. 10�. 5 while, not to overst.ep 1.fba"t aeemed to be the outer limits of the ... prerogative in regard'to !rade.11 Undoubtedly this proclamation · was the work of Robert�.Cecil, the Earl of Salisbury, and other of the King's advisera,,,.'"'Who seized upon the change of' dynasty to re move nagrallt grl.§V'p,ncea. 12 It was a Yise and greatly needed �tep,
I but those \ilhtl.' re�d • it • as a true revelation of James•s intentions were to be,pai.tifiUJ.y disillusioned later on. James ws still putting ' . on fair sho.w;t in March, 1604; when he opened his first parliament. In his S..P�,ch he apologized for the lack of favors and grants, pre sw:nably l,Il. the form of patents, to friends and others who might _ .rveexptfoted. them. To further ameliorate the monopoly situation, ,lames established permanent investigative machinery which included a body called the Commission for SUits.13 This commission vould eval uate all petitions for patents, and none vould be granted without its approval;. The great potential for good of this group was never prop er!¥ exploited, so it provided little check on the evils of monopol.y'.
Among tf�e referees,. as members or the Commission wore called, Sir ·-Fl-anci.S "Bacon was the most prominent. His role in the subsequent histo.ry of the monopolies was an important one. Yet, despite his ''.'.' gooa�:start, James proved unable to controi his grants. By 1606 the Hot!se or Commons had begun to complain loudly about abuses perpe tratea by authority or his pa.t:ents.
e 6
A monopoly ney be defined.as n form ::>f state control encompas• i.ng "the delegation oi' authority to an individual or group of indi• viduals acting ln a corporate capacityn.14 Patents of :monopoly- as issued by Ja.meo I may be differontinted into four categories, not all of vhich are to be condemned. According to Sir Prancis Bacon, the first type of monopoly by patent wns logitil'l8.tely granted when "any m.n out of his o-wn lrlt, i..'ldustry or endeavour finds out a-ny thing beneficial for the commonwalth*••1 5 The famcus 1603 Case of :Monopolies, lnrcy vs. 1Ulen, established this as the only juntifiable basis for a p."l.tent grant, and patent law3 ever since have been ground ed on this principle. The court in this case nlso held thn.t monopo- ·uzation or s;ny trade not newly invented or importod ,ma illegal and detrimental to mgland.16 Patents ware granted not only for first invention of a machine or pl"ocesn, but also for fil•st importa. tion.17 The second type of patent to be considered is the license, of vhich there were two types. The export license gra.nte -1' 1 4Ephriruri Lipson, The Ecopp�ic------W:;s½]ry of ErurlAAd (London: A & C �ck, Ltd., 1931, 3 vols.), 1Il, p.352. Ibid. 16:erioa, ,ft!!f!lioh Patents, p.24. 17tipson, Economic History, III, p.352. 7 the h3.n on tho export of rav :materia.ls. 18 These licenses, the most important of vhich permitted the export of unfinished cloth, were vita.l to the F,nglish economy. As the Cockayne Project of 1614-1617 so devastatingly demonstrated, tha country's econoll\Y could not stand the burden of' being able to export only finished products.19 Another type of' license va.s the dispensing license, \.lhich al lowed the patentee to com.pound with offenders for the breach of cer tain laws -which regulated industrial processes. When these laws proved unvorkable, as in the oa.oe of the tanning trade, patents vere 1sauod to private persons vho uould, idea�, grant pardons or dis pense with penalties for Violations of the statues.20 The opportun ities for abuse inherent in such arrangements were unmercifully ex ploited, thus pointing up one of the area,t weaknesses of James•s government: its lack of a burea.ucracy.21 For his commercial regu• la.tions ever to be effectively imp1emented, James would have had to separate enforcement, or unen:f'orcement, from the profit motive. The right of supervision over an industry or trade constituted the third type or patent. Sir 'Walter Raleigh, for instance, was entitled to license taverns and authorize the retail sale of vine. While regulation of such commodities as wine may have been necessary, 18Price, Eyglish :&;tents, p.9. 19Ibig, P• 10. 20Ibid, pp.12-13 21Christopher liill, Century 9£ Rev)lution 1 1603-1714 (.Edinburghs Thomas llelaon and Sons., Ltd., 1961 , p.29. 8 an unhealthy "feudalism" -wns still created in any industry subject ed.to this form of control.� The abuses practiced under the author ity or supervisory pa.tents could and did reo.oh ludicrouo proportions. The roost notorious offender was Lu.dovick Stuart, the Duke of Lennox and a kinsman of James, who in 605 1 was appointed Aulnager of the New Drapery.� The l�ev Drapery was a specific kind or voolen cloth, hovevar James, in zoo.king the appointment, lumped together all types of cloth under the a.ulnager•s jurisdiction.24 The duty of the aul.nag er was to search the new drapery and to seal those that conformed to at least the minimum standards of' quality and dimension. Lennox•a agents, however, sold the seals without even looking at the oloth.25 While tho industry deteriorated, Lennox got rich. The most troublesome and obnoxious category or patent was the fourth type, Yhioh involved the handing over of an established trade look, stock and barrel to an individual or group. It was described as a ki..'ld of commerce in buying, selling, changing or bartering; usurped by a few and sometimes but by one person •• • vhereb'-;. •.� the liberty or trado is re strained from others_ Z:a.nst the monopolist is eooblod to set a price of commodities at his pleasure.26 The Parliament of 1604 indignantly described such patents a 11a private Z!tipson, Economic Histo ,.III� J; p.354. 23}.fary A. E. Greene (ed.� Calendar of State Papers, Domestic Serte j (London& Longman, Brown, Green, Lcngma..'1 and Roberts, 1857, 12 vols. , VIII, p.233. 24w. Cun.."Ungham, The Growth of EnrJJsh Industry and Commerce in MQdern Times (Cambridge: University Press, 1912, 3 vols.), II, p.297. 25Lipson, Economic Histor;y. III., p • .354. 26Ibid1 p.355. 9 or disordered engrossing for the enhancing or prices, for a private purpose, to a public prejudice."27 Patents of this kind coul.d and did evolve from patents validly granted for inventions or importations. Patents for new processes for ma.king soap and glass, for example, led gradually to the domination of those industries by the patentees.28 Undoubtedly the most destructive and notorious example or a trade being handed over completely to a patentee vhose intentions were less than noble was the inf"a.mous Cockayne Project. This ill-fated venture had its origins in the troubles of the London Eastland Company, wioh was engaged in the cloth export trade to the Baltic. In the early seventeenth century the Eastland merchants encountered. fierce competition in the Baltic cloth markets from the Dutch. The cloths shipped to the Baltic markets by the Eastland Company were manufac tured., dyed and dressed in England. The cloths sent to the Baltic area. by the Dutch were also manufactured in England• but were then sent in an unfinished state to Holland. The Dutch, who had no mills of their ow, applied their ow superior finishing processes to_the cloth and shipped it on to the lhltic markets, where it provided dangerous competition tor the &lglish.29 The Du.tch obtained their �w cloth from the Merchant Adven turers Company or London, with whom the F.astlanders were understand ably a.t odds. As early as 1602 the Eastland merchants had attempted 2'1Ibid. 28Ibid. 29F'riis,--- Cockayne•s Project, p.230. 10 to obtain permission to export unfinished cloth to the lhltio. This would have caused skilled dyers a.nd dressers to accumulate in ports such as Danzig, thus establishing a steady market for the un finished cloth.JO This attempt,· however, failed, and the Eastland share of the trade continued to decline steadily in the face of. the superior Dutch product• .31 To wrsen matters, most of the Eastland mercha.nts were not involved 1n other facets of the export business vhich could tide them over when the cloth trade foundered.32 Sixty six per cent of the F.astlanders trading in 1606 had retired by.1614 • .33 England had law forbidding the export of unfinished.cloth be ginning in the fifteenth century and continuing throughout the six teenth. At the same time, however, licenses were constantly being granted which gave permission to export 'lllltinished cloth.34 The bl.sis ror the granting or these licenses va.s the underdevelopment and inferiority of the English finishing industry. English cloth turned amuch greater profit when exported in a. raw state, When dyed and dressed and then shipped out., its value dropped consider. abJ.y• .35 By granting licenses the state l1ad supported those vho pro duced and handled cloth.(manufa.cturers and merchants) against those who used it (dyers and dressers). The dispute between the tw :,oib"d· 31� .3 lbid1 p.231 p.2.32 • .,,"l�- Ibidt p.233. ��Lipson, Economic Historz. III, p • .376. Ibid, p • .378. 11 factions came to a head while James I was on the throne. William Cockayne w.s a member or the London Eastland Company 'Who had gained prominence, and wealth, in the cloth trade. His vea.lth -was such that he was able to lend the King as much as • 6000, an amount oved him by James in 1610. Fiscal maneuvering of this kind gained Cooknyne a. place in the royal fa.vor1 and no doubt helped launch his political career. He was elected sheriff' or London in 1610, and in 1612 became analderman of the city.36 In 1606 Cockayne threw in his lot with those who ra.vored a bill requiring that all colored cloth be dressed before export.37 The rationale" behind the bill was that it would provide more vork for English clotbvorkers, It passed, but only over the strong opposition of a group of Merchant Adventurers1 whose dyed Somerset and Essex cloths were affeoted. They;argued that if the English ceased to export unfinished cloth, the Dutch would be forced to start manufactur ing their ow cloth and thereby provide even more vorrisome competit ion than before.38 This e,:pression of fear was later proved to be tragically prophetic. This small victory convinced the ambitious Cockayne that, it either parliament or the Privy Council could ever be persuaded to prohibit completely the export of undyed and undressed cloth, he vould be in a position to obtain exclusive rights to the cloth trade. 36Friis,.Cocka;vna•s Project, pp.2.35-236. ~~Ibid, p.236. Ibid, p.237. 12 The Merchant Adventurers would stop their trade in protest• .39 While he planned to base his pleas on the need to bolster tlnd improve the cloth .t'inishing industry of England, Cocka.yne•s real objective was to garner a portion of the unfinished cloth trade held by the Mer chant Adventurers Comr,any.40 Cocka.yne'could not have belleved,that he would·be able to replace the Adventurers• trade in white cloth vith goods dyed and dressed at home.41 Finished cloths vould prob ably be sent only to markots where he had pre-e:d.sting privileges.42 ihe opportunities for tho quick profits Cockayne hoped to ma.ks were in.the vhite cloth trade to the Low Countries and Germany. Cocka.yne•s principal interest was in "direct exportation to the countries where the cloth ws usedff.43 The talk about promoting �ing and dressing was just that. Cookayna*s opportunity to translate his schEn'/ling into action came in 1612 with the death of Salisbury, -who had been the King•a most reliable adviser.44 By this time Cockayne ws an alderman of London and held James in his debt. Judging the moment to be propit ious, Alderman Cockayne introduced a plan wheroby all cloth leaving the Kingdom must first be dyed and dressed. The plan vould supposed:cy, 391:bid, p.2.38. 40Ba.rcy E. Supple, Commercial Crisis and Cp.a.nge in Engla.nd1 16.QO- � (Cambridge: University Preas , 1959), p.36. Friis, Cockayne•s Project, p.238. 42supple, Crisi11, p.J6. 43.Frils, Cockayne's Project, p.239. 44-J:bid-· 13 save England ifi00,000 a year and provide the Crown with a handsome annual. stipend.45 Because·Oockayna was looked upon with favor and because the project nattered his vanity, James lent it his vigorous support. As often happened, he remained blind to the risks involved. U James did not :realize the risks inherent in the Cockayne Project, othero, mainly the Privy Council_, did. At first the King appointed a committee to review the project, but it was quickly- dis• solved 'When it failed to approve the idea.46 This made it clear that getting the plan accepted -was not going to be an easy task.· Along vith the doubts or the Pri,,y Councillors, only two or whom ba.oked Cockayne,47 James had to face the adanant opposition of the Merchant Adventurers, -who would be deprived of all their trading privileges if the plan passed. Thus, to bolster his position, the King secured the support of Sir Edward Coke. At this time, Coke, the greatest common lavyer of the seventeenth century, was still a member of· the King's bench, and bad not yet joined the parliamentary opposition he_ was later to lead so effectively. Having a man or Coke's reputation and ability speaking for it greatly enhanced the project•s chances of passage. Coke sulnitted a report on the proposed plan to the Privy Council in December, 1613. In the report he scathingly attacked the f�ipson, • Economic Ilistor:,:, Ill, p.:378. '+'-'.tfriis, pock§.yno's Project, pp.240-241. 47rbid, p.261. The two Privy Councillors vho supported Cockayne were Suffolk and lake. 14 Merchant Adventurers and praised Cockayhe 1 s project for both its legality end its convenience•. lte first established to his ow satisfaction the legality or the project. The patent of the Mer chant Adventurers, vho specialized in exporting unfinished cloth, also allowed them to export dyed and dressed cloth. Coke maintain ed that.because they had not exercised this right they bad forfeited it, and thus it would be no infringement upon them to grant a license for the same privilege to Cockayne. Furthermore, said Coke, the traditional legislative attitude tovard suoh matters va.s to employ native Englishmen in the preparation of products. He cited laws dating from Edward IV that prohibited the export or semi-finished manufactures. Lastly, Coke declared the Merchant Adventurers• Charter void because it inhibited the general trade of England and vas therefore a monopoly.48 It was not at all surprising for Coke to assail a monopoly, but it was not typical or him to urge its re placement with still another that promised to be e,ten more obnoxious. As to� the convenience of the proposed measuro, Coke felt cer tain that it YOuJ.d insure the maintenance or both the clothvorkers and the merchants and thus preserve the cloth trade, which was of the greatest importnn�e to Engl.and.49 Coke put off those vho opposed on·nocount of a dye shortage by promising that the project would not 15 be started untiladequate supplies could be obtained. Also, the finishing of cloth at homewould supposedly end the deceitful stretch• ing of English cloth abroad. This stretching, allegedly done by other parties, had been soiling the reputation of English manufacturers.SO &o went the argument in favor of Aldel'WUl Cookayne•s project. The best attack on tho idea ws dolivered by Robert Middleton in a speeoh to the lfouse of Commons on 1'hy 20, 1614. Middleton, a .Merchant Adventurer himself, vaa attempting to win over the House or Commons, since that wa.s the only body tha.t could lla.Ve intervenod and blocked the project. Middleton correctly accused the projectors of desir ing only to grab a share of the unfinished cloth trade. In the viev of the Merchant Adventurers, vho should have Imow, Cockayne could not possibly maintain the trade at an acceptable level. Middleton further contended that the dissolution of the Merchant Adventurers would constitute a criminal encroachment on the rights or ito mem bers. A man•s inheritance in his trade was just as VE.lid a.s that 0£ a lan&>wner in his land.51 But Middeton• s pleas went unheeded in the House. Members ot the Commons were pri.ma.rizy concerned with preventing a stagnation in the cloth trade. As long as this vital trade prospared, �hey ca.red little for the compaey or companies involved. In £act, the 16 , Comons w.s if anything fairly hostile to the Merchant Adventurers who_, it ws thought, were reaping a disproportionate sh.a.re of the benefits of the cloth trade.52 There were other objections to the Cockayne Project that prob ably carried more veight. They portended the failure of the project even before it had begun. First, cloth finished in England vould meet with resistance abroad, especially from the Dutch, who -wanted to do their own dyeing and dressing. The inferiority of English finishing ma.de this problem an insurmountable ono. Second, a short age of dyestuffs might cause a disastrous stand in the trade. Final• ly', and most important, the cloth trade, nov stable and prospering, would degenerate into an uncertain commodity. Since ho could never hope to send out as many cloths finished. as were nov sent unfinish ed, Cockayne stood to "change a settled estate into a hopeu.53 That the Privy Council shared these doubts is beyond question. The Council was irresolute, and expressed the opinion tha.t the Cockayne venture could succeed only if the Old Merchant Adventurers could be persuaded to join in. The old compney, however, staunchly resisted, S4 Q.1ld thus doomed the project before it started. FinaJ.l;rI despite the reservationsi £elt by maey, the Cockayne Project was approved and went into effect in 1614. Aldoi,nan WiJHom 17 Cockayne a.nd his band were incorporated as The King's Marchant Adventurers.of the Nev Trade or London.55 · The privileges of' the Old Merchant Adventurers we,;-e revoked. From almost the very begin ning it \las apparent toot Cockayne was headed for a fiasco. The volume of exported cloth plummeted_, and the rev that vere ohipped found �oreign markets closed. In the third yenr of the plan's op• 56 eration only 521000 cloths left England as e.6ainst 81 1000 in 1614. The resumption or the export or raw cloth did not aorve to signifi cantly slow down the rapid'decline of th& trade. As had been pre dicted, the Dutch began to success.fully build mills of their own.'11 'l'ha English olothworkers who vere supposed to benefit so hugely from the Cockayne Project were wrse off' than ever.58 To help the clothworkers the new company agreed to buy up cloths for which there vas no market, but this could last tor only so long. By 1616 the Privy Council w.s lamenting the degene·ration of the cloth trade from "a flourishing state to that which it is now come unton. 59 Even James had to concede that the Cockayne Project had £ailed mis erably• He announced that he did not intend "to insist and stay longer UpOn specious and £air show vhich produce not the fruit our actions do ever aim atu.60 The King's Merchant Adventurers were dis- 55Lipson, Economic History, III, p • .379. 56Frus, Cpokru£Be's Project. p.382. �Lipson• Ffcqoomic Histocr, III, p.382. Ibig, p •.379•.380. 6oibig.59 p.380. :!Wt p • .381. 18 solved in January, 1 61 7,61 and the rights of the original 11..erchant Adventurers were restored for a fine of b50,000. To recoup the 1,50,000, which amounted to a bribe, the restored traders raised their prices, thus further hindering the rehabilitation of the tmde.62 .The· failure of the Cockayne Project ma.y perhaps be finally traced to the wisdom of the displaced Old Merchant Adventurers.6� Those who had felt that the project would succeed only if the capi tal and experience or the old company were injected. into it were proven correct. Men from the old company were continually offered preferred positions of membership in the King's Merchant Adventur ers, and all but a very few refused. From the beginning the Old Adventurers had made clear their asSl..llll})tion that Cockayne would be concerned only 'With dyed and dressed cloths, and that failure in that area alone would result in the restoration or the old company. The Merchant Adventurers never so much as acknowledged tho right of the King's Adventurers to trade in undressed cloth. The wealthiest-old traders not only did not enter the new company, they kept their capital completely out of the cloth trade. The Merchant Adventurers• refusal to become involved wna the chief cause of Cockayna'a inability to handle even the trade in unfinish ed cloth, for which there was a steady market.64 ., 6iareene (ed.}, CSPD, VIII, p.422. �Lipson, Economic- Histor;y:1 �I.I, p.381. supple1 Crisis, p • .36. 64Ibid. 19 The Cockayne fiasco not only dealt the English cloth trado a blov from which it took years to recover; it also dealt a tell- ing blow to the theory or state regula.tion of economic life. Com• bined 'With the other monopoly a.buses that vere constantly appearing; the C_ookayne affair constituted a damning indictment of state con• trol. The monopoly controversy led many English businessmen to believe that state control might do more harm than good.65 The Cockayne Project can at least take credit for having helped to foster this healthy trend. It is necessary to examine the faotors which prompted Jameo to resume the grant of monopoly patents after temporarily suspend• ing them. The early Stuarts thought it their duty to regulate industry, va.ges and world.ng conditions.66 The idea or regulation was not to prevent evils; but to try to establish and maintain positive and good standards or social and industrial well-being.67 The grant to Lennox to inspect the new drapery, or the laws to standardize the tanning process vere manifestations of the desire to uphold standards of quality. James•s attitude toward the in• dustr,y and trade of his country was fatherly, and ha.rmful. One ruler, who knew little enough about the economy, and his ministers "65q.·N..- CJ.ark, The W£!Althof Epp.J.AAdf;tom 1426-1760 (London: Ox• £gra.University Press, 1947); p.121. Hlll* Centur;y:,p.29. 67Cunningham, p:tgliah Induamt II, p.285. 20 could never have wisely guided the course or trade in a rural country. They simply could not take account of all the constantly shifting £actors affecting .Ealgland.1 s economy.68 The economic meanderings of James's government -were not popu lar because they involved interf'erence in the ordinary course of business, vhich most Englishmen regarded as inviolable. As reflect ed by the comoo.tive demeanor of their elected representatives, the public demanded justification for restrictions on their rights. The greatest dissatisfaction was vith the practice of' conferring extreme povers on individuals or companies in regard to industrial. avocations.69 That is to say that monopolies vhich prevented Eng• lish citizens from pursuing their livelihoods were disliked, and vith obvious cause. The burden of' justifying the monopolies lay with the govermnent, whose case wa,non-existent. Few if any patents could be said to have advanced the commonweal. Popular opinion did not ascribe to James e:ny laudable motives in his granting of patents. It was widely e.nd correctly believed that most of' Ja.mes•sg.rants could be attributed to his constant lack of money. By 1603 the monopolies bad ceased to be the eco nomic necessities they once had been.70 During James•s reign 21 there ·was a good deal or free and honest enterprise in English industry, but its healthy effect was negated by the greed or specu• lators and monopolists.71 The court was crowed with courtiers, favorites, projectors and others agitating for special privileges. Moat of these petitioners -were interested in personal gain, and stood ready and tdlling.to exploit both the people and the govern ment. The courtiers vere there either on their own behalf' or on bohall' of' a xnan rith an idea but no influence. The intluence which some insiders were able to muster was a high-priced commod ity. Sir Tho.ms Bartlett offered one such Wluenee-'Wielder t.4000 for help in.securing a monopo4' or pina.72 &1.rtlett•s �ntual rewrd .for his involvement in the pin industr,' van penury and a . visit to the Tovar for making himselfa nuisance.7 3 · Indeed, it would be vrong to a.saum.e that the lot or the patentee was always an easy or profitable one. As noted by Sir Edward Coke in 1607, the :monopolist often bad "a.dear rate to pay for his toolishlless11 .74 Many liquidated valuable assets and then sunk the proceeds into a monopoly, "thereby to annoy and hinder the vhole public veal for '11George Umrin,: Studies Ee nondc His o : :r'}le Collected ,fora of Geor£42UnwJ.n London: liiamiJJan and Co.,Ltd.• 1927), p.324. George Unwin, Ind, tr O z ti 1 the Sixteen ~evegteeath Conturie§ London: Cass and Co.1 1957, p.166. 3,ll!1a. 74tipson, EconomicHistou, m, p.357. 22 his own private benefit. In which course he thriveth so well as that by toiling some short time ••• be doth •• • purchase to himself an absolute beg�. n75 Coke characteristically added that, "their purposes and pra.cticesconsidered, � can wish unto them no better hll.ppiness .76 The-most bothersome or the crowd which filled the court were the projectors, to whom many odious patents me.y be attributed. They pursued.their goals, however, in a manner which ma.de them seem less unscrupulous than they were. In seeking a grant they would propose, for example, to fill some gap in the system of.in• spection and supervision, and at the same .time enrich the coffers of the King.77 . James and his referees too oft� fell prey to these alle�edl.y beneficial schemes. In th�ory they always seemed plausi�e, but in practice they �re almost never worthwhile. Be cause it reviewed all petitions for patents, th� Commission for Suits bears a. good deal of responsibility for these �nopolies. The King himself' had no real interest in cOllltleroial af"fairs, 78 and merely granted patents when that seemed to be an �"'Cpedient course of action. It was a very convenient wy of repaying debts, as in the case or Alderman Cockayne, and of recouping the great sums he extravagantly passed out to·relatives and .favorites such as Somer- -,,�, 76Ibid. p.3560 7�' Friis, Cocknyne's PFQject, p.114. set and Buokingba.m.79 James had hoped at one time that income from monopolies might holp him bocom.eindependent of parliament.80 But, like Elizabeth, he soon found that monopolies vere a meager source of income at boat. For all the ill-feeling they stirred up among, the people, the monopolies brought James leas than f000 a year in revenuo.81 Tho character of James also played a part in the story of the monopolies. James vas not the dunce that popul.ar opinion, with the a.id of Alexander Pope, bas tra.ditiona.llJ thought him to be.· He was a man of oome ability and erudition, and vas able to entertain ad• vancod ideas, such au the desire for a true union with Scotland and toleration :for the Oatholics.82 There was nothing in James•s make-up, however, that fitted him for the tank of governing a country. As a ruler, James vas incompetent. Jle had no real sense or purpose, was unable to comprehend the English parliamentary system and, most important 1n relation to the nionopolies, had a great weakness. for favoritee. 83 This weakness for favorites led to the rise of the notorious George Villers. James first met Villiers at Apethorpe in 1614 and 79wall.ace llotoatein, .lll,a..li.r nniffii_o r_m e nitinI tive bv the House 2t Commons (Londont Oxford Univorsity Presa, 1924), p.31. 80price,. :§np.Jigh Patents, p.31. 81 Lipson, Economic Historx, III, p.356. 8 0 2J. R. Tanner, Co nstitutio nnl• Documents f Ja -----mes -- I , 1603-1622 �Cambridge,.. University Press, 19.30) , pp.2-J. 3Ibid.; p • .3. 24 liked himediately imm . Villiers was extraordinarily handsome, possessing the alluring tr.iits of both sexes. He had the mscu line strength to excel at sports and dancing, yet his features, especially his face and hands, were of feminine delicacy.84 James loved him to distraction* a.nd there oo.n be no doubt that tho 1-e• lationahip had homo3exual overtones. Throughocit·'., his career Vil• liers pretended to return James's love in full measure, mainly because it was necessary if' he were to mintain his position. Arter 'Winning James so completely, Villiera t rise was meteoric. In-slightly more than two years time he rose from squire to ea:l, becoming in January or 1617 the Earl. or Buckingham, by which name he is commonly know.85 Bucld.ngba.lll roseto the dignity of Mlrqueaa on New Year's Day, 1618; and in 1619 wa.s rr.ade Lord High .Admiral. Buckingham ws :married in May 1626, to Katherine Manners, daughter of the Earl of' Rutland, e. Catholic. She eonver-ted and they were married by John Williams, the� of Westminster.86 Tho favorite did not become the Duke of Buclr..ingbam until 1623 vhen he ws in Spain vith Prince Charles a.nd in need or all the rank ha could mus ter. Before ha could raise Bu.ckingham James bad to make his Scot:h\;k, kinsman Lennox the English Duke of Richmond, thereby preserving 84navid H. Willson, James VI and I (New York, Henry Holt and Company, 19!56), p.384. 85G. P. v. Akrigg, Jacobean Pa� (Cambridge: Harvard University- Preas, 1962), pp.205-206. 86s1r Sidney- Lee, Sir Leslie Stephen (eds.), The Diotionru;:,y: of Nationql Biogra.ph.Y (1949 ed., 22 vols.), xx, p.329. 2; his precodence.87 Buckingham had all the faults associated vi.th one in his position,. Ho was excessively vain, obstinate to the point of be• ing nicknamed the white mule,· promiscuous and £'aiming.� But he ws also intelligent and had an•interest in government and admin• istra.tion that ma.de him.more destructive than previous favorites had been. Buckingham's ascendancy over James we nearly, abso lute, and so he easily secured anything for which he troubled to ask. He wanted to gain mote as a dispenser of pa.tronage,00 and this he did. After gaining favor Buckingham wasted little time in begin ning to take advantage or his position. Through his influence his mother became the Cotmtess or Buckingham• and his brother Christopher was made an earl. But the most important manifestat ions of his intluence vere the monopolies which came out of the so called Buckingham ring, whose principals vere the favorite,-his brother Sir Christopher Villiers, and his ha.l.f•brother Sir Edw.rd Villiers.' The most active agents for the ring vere Sir Giles Mom pesson and Sir Francis Michall.90 This group held patents for inns, alehouaes, and gold and silver thread, all of which were extremely obj actionable in practice if not in· theory• These men and their . a . I eJAkrigg, fQHeAAt• p.206. �, p.205. Lee and Stephen (edo.), _mm, xx, p.J28. 9OPrice , Engli@h Patens, p.32. 26 patento played a. mjor role in the oonopoly furor of 1621. Actually, it wuld be ina.ooura.te to say that Jat1es had what 1could be called a commercial policy. His ma.in concern wa the assertion and furtherance of his royal powers. The King's attent ion could be diverted to commercinl questions only vhen he thought, or could be ma.de to think, that these matters might serve to en hance his kingly splendor. Uor could James�s parliaments be said to have had any settled commerical polioies.91 The economic atti tudes and actions of both vera outgrowths of the power struggle which developed between them. The struggle, vhich culminated in the Parliment or 1621 1 was most clearly reflected by the monopoly controversy. The basic fact of parlirunent•s thinking throughout was its opposition to what they considered Ja.mes•s meddling in areas that should have been off limits to him. The House of Com mons wo just as deeply interested in asserting wha.t it thought to be its rights as James was in asserting vhat he thought to be his. Actua.lly, both James and the Commons claimed more power than•pre codent and tradition granted them.92 The conflict was inevitable, and the Commons• successful opposition to the monopolies played no small pa.rt in its eventual victory. Before going into the parliamentary opposition to the monopolios, it is necessary to examine two closely' related factors which great- 91Friis, Cocka.yne 1 s Project, p.134. 92Ibid, p.135. . 'Z1 ly affected the King - Parliament relationship. One -was the polit ica.l beh.cvior and thinking of Jam.ea I, and the other the emergence of a nev and independent leadership in the House of' Commons. James•s rela.tfonship with his parliaments must be viewed in the light of his stated political beliefs. Throughout his life James I was a firm believer in the divine right of kings. He described what he thought to be the proper relationship betveen himseli' and the country or England in the f'_ollowing terms: "I am the Husband, and the whole Isle is my La'Wi"ull Wife; I am the Head; and it is nry Body. u93 Carrying it even further he declared kings to be "the breathing images of God upon eo.rth."94 Such ideas. vere definitely not in vogue in early seventeenth-century England. Yet1throughout his reign, in plain opposition to the spirit or 95 the times, James insisted on the hereditary character or his t1tle > and never failed to attempt to furthor his prerogative when the op portunity arose.., The most comprehensive exposition or James•s political theories is to be found in ',O:le Trey Law of Free &n4rchie§• published in 1598. The fact that James clung religiously to the doctrines promulgated in this book goes tar tovard explaining many of his la.tar actions. 93Charles H, Mcllwaih, 1'he folij;;\cal Works ot JN4Qs I (Cam.bridges Harvard University Press, 1918}, p.XXXV. 9�Ibiq. 9 Ibi!i111 p.XXXVI 28 Once he had set a course for himself' the King seldom deviated.96 lle claimed that his power was absolute because his ancestors bad conquered England and Scotland, and therefore absolute ownership of the lands lay in him.. As abaolute overlord or the land, the King had the power of life and death over.his oubjects. While he vould never take a. subject!s life without clear justification by law, all law did have its origin in the sovereign himself'.97 It was only natural for James to believe that the royal prerogative ws "no Subject for the tongue of a. Lavyer, nor is lawful to be disputed11.98 James did not believe in the independence of a :national as sembly such as Parliament, much less in the superiority it claimed for itself'. He felt able to do "without advice or authority of either Parliament or any other subaltern judicial seatn.99 Parl• iment w.s derided by James as "nothing else but -the Head Court or the King and his vo.asa.ls".100 It was fully within tho kingts rights to nmake daily statues and ordinances, enjoining such pains thereto as he thinks meet, without arr:, advice of Parliament or es ta.tesu .101 James ws annoyed by the wy men in the English Parll- b A 96I------~·bid., p.XXIVII. · 97 Ibig, P• XXXVIII-XXXIX. 9�Igid, p.XL. 9 Ibid, p.XLI. 100Ibig. 101Ibig•. 29 ament constantly proposed new laws. He disliked the freedom of ·. debate in Engla.nd, preferring the Scottish Parliament, where mem- bers could speak only 'With the permission of' the chancellor, and could be silenced by him. Unpleasant experiences with Parlirunent promp�d Je.:rnes to advise his son Charles to hold parliaments only for the ma.king of new la�s, and even then as seldom aa possible.102 .That does not soem to r.a.ve been the solution to the problem. It must.be said for James that he rqnked his duties second only to his povers. He acknovledged that a good king was ma.de for the people, not the people for the king •. 1o.3 As it turned out the people or Engl.and, with James on their side, lnd little need of enemies. His dedication to serving the people might have bEENa saving grace had he proved capable of acting upon it. Ideas such as those embraced by James were anachronistic in seventeenth-cent1.1I7 England. 1'he independent and tough-minded men who came to dominate parliament during James•s reign held diamet rically opposite view. They reflected the feelings of the pop ulace which had sent them to London. These country gentlemen, many or them sldlled and ambitious lawyers, vere "less subservient to the royal and conciliar yilln1 04 than their predecessors had 30 been. yThe •owed their primary loyalty to the comm.on lav,105 and when James did not pay proper respect to this,. their god, then the battle was joined.. The first Stuart ruler regarded his prerogative as "that especial pover, pre-eminence or privilege that the King hath above the ordinary course of the common lawn.106 The phrase "above• •• the common law" connoted a concept destructive of the English constitution, and therein lay the quarrel; between James and his parliaments.107 As talented and aggressive as the oppositionists vere, they Illight not have fared so well without the help ot James•s political. ineptitude. In the past, the stationing of skillf'ul Privy Council lors in the House of Commons had proven to be an effective method of controlling that body.108 James,. however,, made the mistake1of sending inexperienced men against the likes of Sir &lvin Sandys and ?Uchola.s Fuller. In the battles ovor grievances such as the monopo lies, these men co.me off second best and the initiative in the com 109 By g mons, passed o-v:er tho opposition. tho. t�e these men bad ot- 'ten enough ex:pe�ience to ably represent the ro� point or viev, James pulled them out of the Commons and made them peers 9f tp,a .... realm.110 Thus James, vho cared so much .for royal privilege, bungl ed about and seldom liad any proven men in. the Cot"..:-.ons to speak for '05Ibid, p.50. 106Prothoro, Select Statues, p.cxxv. 107Ibid. 10Sp-rice, English Patents, p.20. 109Uotestein, Wiprtj.ng the Initiatiyq,1 p.31. 1 0 1 Ibig1 p.:33. 31 him. Instead, he often spoke for himself', and b-/ doing so did noth• ing to advance his cause. James dissipated the Crown's prestige with his "long scolding speeches, his too frequent interference in the details of parliamentary business, his lack of dignity and tact, his extra.va.gnnce, §.ni/his references to the divine right of kingsn . 111 His royal pronouncements oeasod·to ca.rr;y the tra ditional. weight, and vhen he talked of the prerogative he merely inspired Parliament to press its own claims.112 The claims fo-,;- vhich Parliament fought so fiercely did not really constitute an attempt to extend that assembly•s power. Ja.mes•s parliaments were merely asserting and maintaining constitutional principles and parliamentary rights which might othel"\Jise have sunk into.oblivion and disuse. 11_; Rather than attempt to create new in Qtitutions his parliaments spent a good deal of time defending priv ileges they considered already to be.theirs. This explains vhy' Jamea 1 s reign is marked by a dearth of legislative achievement •. But the non-legislative accomplishments or the reign vere signiricant, and for these accomplishments the monopolies, 1n their ow perverse way, my share.the credit. ,,,David H. Willson, Tho Parliamentarv· · Din.rv of Robert Bo er 1606- � (Minneo.poliss University1 of Hinnes�� Press, 1931 , p.XVIII. ""'Notestein, Winninf-{ The Initiative, p.32. 113Prothero, Select Statµes, pp.L1XII-LXIII. THE EARLY OPPOSITION, 1606-1614 While the final and most significant chapter of tho 9ppoaition to the monopolies ws \oltitten in The House of Commons in 1621, James1 s two previous parliaments did not ignore patent abuses. The parliamentary opposition in,the first half or the reign v.is strong but unorganized. In these early days the oppositionists used guer1lla-type tactics, constantly dogging the King's sympath•_ izers. The group which disagreed with the King had no established leaders, but did often place its confidence in men like Sir Edwin Sandys or Nicholas Fuller, vhose resistance to James ws outspoken and eftective.1 The tide of resistance we less clear in 1606 than at any time during the reign,2 yot it ws during this second ses sion or James•s first parliament that serious opposition to the monopolies first manifested itself. "lwuson, Bowyer's Diary, p.xx:. 2�, p.XXI. In 1606 the House of Commons established a committee to re viev grievances and to decide vhich of them vere fit to be aub ll11tted to the King for redress. But, before they could be sub mitted in the £om of a petition, they had to be allO\.led as griev ances by the House as � vhole.3 On April 9; 1606, llichola.s Fuller,· the lawyer vho had von the famous 160.3 Caso of Monopollos1 deliver ed to the Cotm1ons the grievances that the committee .bad designated aa especially in need of correction. Figuring prominently on tho list vere several patents or monopoly. First among all grievances va.a the license for the selling of vines held by the Lord Admiral, Charles How.rd. This license w.a in direct opposition to the· fa.ct that the Commons had repealed the la'W'S of Edward VI allov.Lng vine prices to be fixed. The Commons had also ruled that there should be no more dispensations or monopolies or tavemo, or of retail vine sales. Nevertheless, some persons had ta.ken advantage of outdated statues or grants, or warrants from James, to inoreas·e the IlUillbe:r of taverns and raise the price of 'Wine. Furtherinore, Elizabethan grants annulled by Parliament had been revived under the Great Seal. Under cover or these illegal grants great sums in fines and rents had been extorted from the King's su.bjocts. The sale of wine had been introduced to places vhere it bad never been .34 sold before, and unruly alehouse keepers had been a.lloved to main• ta.in establishments, thus increasing drunkenness a.lid other disor ders among the people. The House allowed the Wine pa.tent a.s a grievance.4 Fifth on the committee•s list of complaints was the Duke o£ Lermo�::•s-pa.tent for inspecting and se�ng the new Drapery. This 5 grant had been oode leas than a year before, in September, 1605. Lennox•s agents, it vms alleged, often sold the sea.ls for up to f'our times their value as prescribed in the patent. Bei'ore'tha discussion could proceed further, it. -was moved and passed that Lennox1 s counsel be hoard.6 On the appointed day several specific charges were levolled against Lennox and his conduct of the patent. The patent -was said to be grievous both in law and in emoution. It was considered illegal for an aulnager to measure manuractured cloth goods, such as stockings and nightcaps. It was also illegal . and unprecedented for feos such as those collectod by Lennox to be paid by a subject to another subject. They shou1d have been paid to the King. A .further illegal practice was the levying of a twenty shilling fine on those who would not pay for the sea.is. As for the abuses in execution of the said patent, the patentees were accused of robbing men of their money and goods on the highway, �b!!J, p.110 Greene, {ed.), CSPD, VIII, p.233 fillson, Bower's Dip.:rx. p.112. and of seizing as forfeit goods not properly sealed.7 The Duke's counoel wa unable to summon an effective defense in the .face or theso charges. Ha said that Lennox himself wou1d agree for the patent to be tested in aey "Court of His Ma.j_esty in Westminster llall/8 Thia pa.tent also ws a.lloved a.s a grievance by the Commons. A third grant wbich came in for criticism was the saltpeter patent. Although the qbuses perpetrated in the sea.rob for saltpeter were truly bothoraome to the people or the countryaide, the sa1t peter pa.tent had a fairly defensible reason for existence. The desire to have the resources to r.nke gunpowder vithin England was legitimte. Gunpo-wder imported from. the continent vas expensive, might be intercepted and seized on the high seas, and if during var-time the supply were out oft the results could bo disastrous. Thus, for the purposes of national security Elizabeth had granted saltpeter patents.9 The practice was continued by Jam.es, who granted a pa.tent in OCtober, 1604, to John Evely.n1 Ric. Harding, o.nd Robert Evelyn to make saltpeter and to keep the King supplied uith gunpowder for tventy-one years. 10 This grant ws later revoked 36 e.nd ·the same terms were �ted in Hay, 1607, to the Earl of Wor• cester.11 The saltpeter patentees and their agents were authorized to aea.rch and dig anywhere, .including private homes. Nor were those seeke s 11:clined to be careful in their searches, which vent n � . � a.paeQ regardless of the circumstances. After years of abuse an· in.Vestigation into .the matter produced a. report on the excesses �f the so-called saltP?termen. Among the places they dug, seldom ' . filling the holes the7 made, were parlors, badcba,mbers, churches, dove-houses, barns andmalting houses: 'These ·gentlemen were not . abovo digg� beside or under sick-beds, child-beds, .and death- beds, nnd sometines undermined the -wo.lls of a house.1 2 Tho Com mons of 1606· complained th.at although the present patentees had made great quantities ot saltpeter• llttJ.e of it had come into the possession and use of the King.13 According to Sµ- Robert Jolm�on, Officer or the Ordinance, no saltpeter or powder had recently come . into the rJ.ng_•s store. Johnson proposed that all materials of var should be t�sported only under the privity of James. The House or Commons approved saltpeter a.s a grievance, and admonished -1iibig. p.356. 1�1:ipson, Economic Historx, III, pp • .358... .359. 1�wills�n, !3m:fyer•s Diar;r. p.131. 37 that particular care.ahouJ.d be paid to unorderly digging 1n houses, since this was a necoanar:, pa.rt or obtaining saltpeter and had to be oontinued.14 These com.plaints, along vith other grievances of various kinds• vere su.a:dtted to James. and elicited a reply on March 181 1606. The reply·was read by the House Speaker, Sir Robert Phelips. James said that Commons had embarked on a course of complaints contrary to hia expectations.15 Nevertheless, he would gladly add his author ity to that of Parliament in the correction or J.a.ys which "come short or are defectiveu.16 If need Qe, he was t.r::JJJ�ng to act along 'With the advice of the Privy Council, or to turn the grievances ovex- to the courts of justice. The King hoped tha.t Parliament vould confine itself to the i'ollo'W'ing grievances: monopolies, hind• ranees to justice, oppression and corru.ption.17 This repJ.$ held out the hope that James might grant some kind or redress, but this hope was dashed when in a later message concerning complaints he flatly told the Commons tha.t consideration or the petition or griev• ances would be deferred to a future session. Since it had granted James supplies, the Parliament w.s disgrutltled at this lack of cooper ation. In .faat1 James did not seem particularly interested in 'What ~~ p.1J2. Ibid, pp.SJ-84. 1v!m.g•0 p.84. 1~ 38 was happening in London. According to Zorzi Giustinian, The Venet ian ambassador, James was perpetually occupied 'With country pur suits, and had even moved the court to Greenwich. i'his detach ment was annoying not oncy to diplomats, but also to the English people, who vanted to see . their·king now and then. Their dis content was unqerscored b;r a complaint found fastened to the door of the Privy Ch.qmber. It alleged that James• s laxness was leaving his ministers .free to prey-upon the subjects of the-realm. The King w.s admonished to avoid giving his people further reason "for acting so that he should have to complain 0£ themn.18 Thus the opposition to James made itself Im.ownas 8f:l1"ly as 16061 but it produced no results. All J8lll8s's promises to redress grievances or submit them to the courts proved empty. B.Y 16101 vhen the fourth session ot his first parliament w.s rea� to convene, it had become obvious that to make any progress t.oward redress of grievances the Commons vould have to renav its protests. Th& at titude of the Commons in 1610 ws indicated by a speech given be fore the House by Nicholas Fuller. His speech made it clear that The House or Commons \la.a becoming less tolerant or the royal prerog ative. .Fuller seized upon the example of the monopolies to shov that the common lav preserved an Englishman's right in his lawful_ UJHoratio F. Brown (ed.), Calemkr- of State Papers, Venetian Series· (Londoni "Norfolk Chroniele" Co., Ltd., 1900, 38 vols.), x, p • .353. 39 trade or occupation just as it did in his J.ands or goods.19 The subjects had a right to expect the King's justice, to which the King must yield "noMthstanding any pretense or shov or prerog... ativen.20 What good, asked Fuller, is the authority of law, it things done ttby color or pr�gative1121 and relating to the "goods, lands and-liberties or the subjectsn22 cannot be examined and duJ¥ censored by the .rules of lav and the authority of the common lav Judges? Fuller went on to cite several of the oases he had won aga.inSt patents of prerogative� One of them concerned a printer's violation or a printing monopoly'. Fuller we able to v:1.n the case becausa the prosecutor retu.sed to discuss the legality of the patent since that would ha.ve touched on the IU.ng•s prerogative. Arguing that vhen the lands, goods orliberties of a subjeot vere at stake anything w.s liable to discussion, Fuller spoke boldl:y' and won.23 The lawyer al.so brought up the matter of Jatnes1 s attempts to make money from the monopolies. The law of England prevented the King from »addling vi th the property or goods of his subjects, and so he had alwys had to rely on Parliament for funds in time of wa.,:, ,9ii.iza�th-- Read Foster, (ed.j,-- Proceedings in Parliament, 1610 £�w Haven:. Ya.le University Press, 1966, 2 vols.), IIt p.152. �- p.156. �Ib\g. Ibid• 23;tbig, pp.156-157. /JJ or other need. Heney V had $.Uthorized an officer to measure linen for the public's protection, and to receive for this service a fee. The courts voided the patent because only Parliament could legally cha.r e tha peopl�•s goods.24 Thus any pa.tent grant which included g _ a kickback to James was illegal. Fuller finally conclµdad that, as shown by the case or the printing monopol,y' and other precedents, the subject clearly had the right to maintain his legitimate interests against the Kinfb unless such recourse be denied bylav. The common laws, said Fuller, "mea sure the King•s prerogative as it shall not tend to take ava.y or prejudice the inheritance of the subjeotn.25 Fuller also termed .invalid all precedents cited in support of the monopolies. Some other members of the Bouse backed up Fuller•s vievs. The most not able of thase was Henea.ge Finch, who held the decidedly radical opinion that the prerogative of the King could be restrained by' act or Parliament. Some acts of parliament, he maintained,are made as advi�e to the King. They- do not bind the King• but when he grants a pa.tent contrary to one of these acts, then that patent is void. A patent grant not contrary to the act is allowed to stand.26 41 The 1610 Commons, definitely not in a conciliatory frame of' mind, pursued the same pa.tents it had found offensive in 1606. In 1606 James had promised that the Duke or Lennox•s P?,tent would be judged in the courts or J.av, and that all abuses would be punish ed to the satisfaction of those affected. Yet the complaints con tinued, and it became obvious "that not only the sa1d letters pat ents are still kept on foot, and the validity or them undecided. b:, judgment,· bu.t disorders 1n their execution are so far from being reformed that they multiply everydayto the great grievance and oppression of your Majesty's au.bjects."27 'l'be Commons expressed the hope that James would act UpOn his earlier resolution and bring the patent to judgment because it a.treated all his subjects. t.In til a decision could be reached The House vanted Isnnox•s rights suspended so that he could not further annoy the people and cause them to have to restate their grievances.28 Another griewnce from 1606 va.s the vine monopoly'. Lord High Admiral Charles Hows.rd ws licensed to sell 'Wine to whomever he judged acceptable. James had said that the license we.s J.avM. The Commons, however, maintained that the license -was based on a lawnow obsolete and unobservable. Commons had expected James to recall this patent before 16101 but he had not done so.29 'l'he ·· 27Ib!d . petition concerning the vine monopoly stated that it was contrary to the Kingdom's laws for James to givo a subject penalty, dispen sation or benefit of a. J.av made by parliament for the public good. Parliament ho.d ruled that dispensationo o� monopolies of taverns or reta.il vine sales vere illegal. In recent reports His Ma.jesty•s judges had supported the Commons• stand on this matter. On these grounds the King vna enjoined to recall the patent.3� The House of Commons delivered a Petition of Grievances to James on July 7, 1�10. The petition, vhich'bad boen passed by The House three times like any other bill, had been prepared by a com mittee headed by.Sir E:dwin Sa.ndys• .31 James appeared in the House of Lords on Jul.¥ tenth to anmrer the petition. Ile came persona.lly', he said, because. the grievances vere of his doing and. so should be ansvered by him, .though only God could take him to account for his kingly deeds. Also, it is best to hear glD.d tidings from those vho did them, and only he coul.d give redress. James .first announc ed his intention to maintain anything, grievance or not, which touch• ed his honor. Parliament had no right to ask him to part with these. In matters relating to his profit, the King said that the judges had assured him that his acts were lawful, and so the Lord Treasur- 30Ibid, p.271. 31!1?.¼.!!, I, p.XV. 43 er would speclc for him in this regard• .32 James then spoke of the patents. He promised that The Mewastle Coal prices would be re duoed.33 The Nevcastle Coal monopoly of wndon bad been approved by the monarchy on condition or receiving a. tax on exportation. Because it had been authorized by. the Crow, the Privy Council could do nothing to stop the a�os which arose from this monopoly. Coal output va.a restricted, the price .roso from £our to nine shillings a. chaldron, and the quality or the coal deolined• .34 In regard to the wine patents, tmioh had been protested a second time., .Tames said that after the expiration or all wine pat ents then in ei'feot1 including How.rd1s,no more ;rould ever be is sued. He trould not acknowledge, though, that the vine pa.tents had been a grievance. others had convinced him, he said,. that the .Lord Admiral had done such excellent service that his pate11t had bean an honor to the country• .35 In regard to Lennox•a patent, James said that he had asked the judges to make a s\dft decision on its legality. He also pro mised that forever hereafter he would be content for Jme and JrV issue never to grant any such things 'Without the consent of po.rlla mentn• .36 The King concluded his comments on the monopolies by beg- '2Ibid1 p.1.30 • .33lbid, p.13.3• .3"unw1n, Studies, p.327. J 5Foster,' Procoedin..1H, I, p.1.33. 36 Ib�d. ging the parliament to make it unlawful for men to petition him for something he could not legally grant)? This \tas an adnission of his inability to turn suitors u ao.y. Finally, Jru:ics turned to a subject wllioh reaJ.:cy- interestod hm. He rern.indeu parliament. that it had not yet granted him supplies, and Ul'ged it to hasten to this ta.sk.38 Late in July Jam.co once again promised to 1·edress grievances attributable to Lennox•s patent. J'arliamcnt was then prorogued unti..l. October ·16, 1610.39 Yet• by Uover.ibei· sixteenth, no action had been ta.ken against Lennox ru1d other offensive patenteos.40 Once ag:J.ir1 Jamer. bad failed to mke good his pi·onli;:rns. That the Cotnnons YO.s dead serious about rcmed.ying tho monopoly situation ws demonstrated oy the case of Sir Stephou lToctor. While this case is interesting nnd signii'icant only ns an exan;,ple of action ta.ken ago.inst an offenzive patentee, it did fore�hadow the revival of impeachnont in 1621. Proctor vas accueed of com pounding with violators· . of' penal l:nrn, of: ta!dng bribes u11d re wo.rds, and of tomenting Il:.<-'l.ll.Y poor peoplo.41• Furthermore, he illegally assumed the authorityaf a Justice of the Pe�ce and searched houses and corrers, often confiscating the money and goods of sub- '''rg:ip. . ,38~ p.134. 39Ibid, II, p.295. 4Dl91£1,p.336. 41Ibis};, p.412. 45 jects.42 Salisbury said that he had never know Sir Stephen "to deal honestly in any 1natter11 .43 A bill ws draun against Proctor which stated that all "letters patents, conmdssions and warrants heretofore made to the said Stephen Proctor b:l his 113.jeaty of or for any receivership1 stmtardship, or other matter concerning his M!Jestyts revenues •••shall stand and be utterly void"•" Proctor ws degraded from the knighthood, forbidden to hold of fice, could never cor.ie near the Cro,m, and his lands and goods wre to bo sold to compensate those he had damaged.45 This.pro posed punishment was very similar to the penalty laid upon Sir Giles Mompesson vhen he ws. impeached in 1621. on Ju:cy- 211 1610, the Lords and The Commons held a conference on the Proctor bill, which had passed the Commons. The Lords, however, rejooted tho measure and so it vas referred to the next session. With tho as• sent or James and both Houses, Proctor ws exempted from the gen eral pardon so that he could be challenged aga1n.46 Despite his failure to alleviate monopoly a.bu.sea, James did seem interested in assuring the public of hia good intentions when he issued the Jt>2k of Boup.;t.t. The second section of the Book or Bounty has this headingt A memorial of.those special things for vhich we expressly command that no Suitor presume to move us being matters either contrary to our Laws, or such principal Profits or Our Crow.ne, a.nd settled Revenue, as are first to be wholly refQrred to our ow uso, until our est.ate be repaired.4'l . The µst of."thingo contrary to our lAwsn48 contained three items oi'\pnrtioulnr interest. The first forbidden 1 tem ws monopolies. The second w.s grants.giving the patentee the benefit of penal laws, or the power to dispense with tho law or compound with cf• fenders. Also taboo were licenses granting relief from customs duties and from export and import la111s.49 Undoubtedly, James later regretted the issuance of the Book of Bounty;. Parliament seized upon its pronol.lllciemants against monopolies and similar grants as the basis of the Statue of Monopolies of 1624. 50 In. 1�10 James showed two faces in regard to the monopolies. On the one hand he publicly declared his abhorrence of them. On the other• he refu.oed to cooperate 'With the Pa.rliament•s very reasonable demands for the redress of flagrant abuses. The ev�ntn of 1610 left the monopo4" situation lnsicolly unchanged. Both James and the Commons were as determined a.s e)(er to have their own wy. In 1614 James once a.gain found himself in dire financial 47Gordon, Monop.plies by Patents, p.175 • . 48Ibid. · · 49-·Ibid. .. 50rbi4, p.a. 47 straits, and so was constrained to call a parliament, his second. This was the .famous Addled Parliament, which lasted only two mon't;hs. It convened on April 51 �614.51 During this brio£ period the monop olies once again cane under f'ire. They were discussed at length, and deaigna.ted by Sir· John Eliot· as one or the tvo princ1pa1 causes of oommerical decline.52 Indeed, the Parliament or 1614 might have acted against the monopolies had it not been dissolved first. Yet,- while The Addled Parliament did not act·a.gainst the monopolies, neither did it replenish the royal Exchequer. Des• para.ta for money, James once again turned to the monopolies as a 53 tiource ot revenue. Frediota.bly1 the financial returns wre slim while the abuses multiplied, thereby setting the stage for· the downfall of monopolies and monopolists in 1621. 5ina.rold Hulme, ,Tho Life 2f Sir John El!g:!t (New York: New York University Press, 1957), p.27. 5�IbisJ., p.44. 5 Samuel R. Gardiner, History; of ::,1and, 1603-164,g (London: Long. Mans, Green and Co., 1883, 10 vols., IV, p.21. THE PARLIAMENT OF 1621 and THE STATUE OF MONOPOLIES liot having been subsidized since 1610, James in 1621 once again found himself £aced with a desperate financial situation. As in 1614, his only recourse was to call a parliament. James could not have expected that this parliament would be a cooperative one. In the nearly seven years since the dissolution of the Addled Parlia• ment tho number of monopolies bad increased steadily. In 1621 there vere. allegedly 700 of them. 1 Furthermore; the nev breed of indepen dent parliamentarians vould be in f'ull control or the House of Com• mans. That the monopolies vere sure.to be vigorously assailed under these circumstances ws forosoen by the King's advisers in their preparations f'or the parliament. Hoping to avoid trouble, a group of judges headed by Sir Francis Bacon, the Lord Chancellor, advanced a plan whereby the most obnoxious patents would be withdrawn before ,Hill, Cent:w;::y of Revolution, p.33. 49 the Commons could complain or them.2 Those remaining in force vould bG readily relinquished when protested, and in no case would any patent be defended against public opinion) On December 14, 16201 these ideas were put before the Privy Counc:i_l.'• Evon though many councillors favored the plan, it failed to.win approval due to the influence of Buckingham, vho obstinately defended the patents when he could just as·eas� have ended them. 5 Instead, the Council ruled that the patents should reriain to be protested. When they vere challenged, James would immediately grant redress. This decision was a mistake because it allowed the credit for un covering patent evils to go not to the King a.nd the Council but to the Commons. Had Bacon had his way, the first two patents to be attacked, Mompesson1 s for inns and Villiers•s for alehouses, vould already have been swept avay.6 Parliament convened on January 30, 1621. The King was interest ed primarily in a subsidy, but the House of Commons was of another mind. For the first tvo veeka of the session the Commons tried to get into foreign affairs, but was coldly rebuffed. So, when on Feb. 2navid H. Willson, The Privy: Councillors in the House or Commonst 160:4::1§22 (Minneapolis: The University of Minnesota Preos, 1940J, pp.41-42. JJames Sped.ding, An Account of The Lifo o.nd Ti1:;_es of Francis Bao (Boston: Houghton, Osgood, and Company, 1878, 2 vols., II, p .424. 4Willaon, r_riyy; Coyncillors, p.42. 5Ibid, p.43. 0spedd1ng, �QQn, II, pp.424-425. 50 ruary·seventeenth James offered to meet tho House hali\ray on arv domestic grievances it might want to discuss, his proposalms re ceived with cpen arms.7 Just two days later William Noy opened the attack on the monop-,, olles. In a speech before the. Commons he said that the King could not be held to blame for the bothersome patents.then in existence. They ha.d alw.ys, said Noy, been referred to the Commission to ex amine Suitors, which had to approve a patent application before it could become law. He proposed that the referees, as the Comission ers -were known., be brought to the House of Commons and examined for their actions in approving the various patents.8 The mo�t prominent referee vas Francis Bacon. Noy was not, in fact, the first member to speak of the referees. F.arlier in February Sir Edwrd Sack.ville had expressed the opinion that. sinoe.the rete!'eeS had certified .the pa.tents, they should be examined so that they might !'receive the blame and the shame" of their deeds.9 Noy•s proposal to examine the referees w.s seconded by Sir Edward Coke, tho greatest common la"'Yer of the seventeenth century and a Privy Councillor as well. Coke• s legal knowledge and exper ience had won him the esteem of his largely ine.."Cperienced colleo.gues, .,�rdiner1 History, IV, .p.39. 8waJ.J.ace rloteste1n, J.t'rances Relf, and Hartley Simpson (eds.), Commons Debates, 1621 (:Nev Haven:· Yale University Press, 19.35, 7 vols.}, IV,pp.78-79. 9Spedding, Bacon, II, p.426. 51 who were, surprised and delighted at . haw.in g a Privy Councillor · support a• proposal like Noy's, which w�uld call into question some of the King's highest officia.J.s. 10 His· support for Noy•s motion demonstrated Coke•s elll'.ost .fanatical devotion to the common lau, -which he regarded as the supreme law. In his year.a on the Common Pleas and King's Bench (1606-1616), ha had como into conflict with James, vho rated his own royal prerogative above the common law. . The turmoil or these years eventually ied Coke to � with, and . 11 ·· b�come the 100:der or, the parliamentary opposition. Coke's loyalty to the common law, though somewhat extreme,. was reflective. of a deep-seated national reeling. During the Tudor Period rev erence .ror the common law had increased among the people because the sovereigns themselves seemed to revere it. When aggrieved, cit izens and parliament had appealed to the law. Those who pitted the common law against the Crow met with little success, but never theless there was a. growing feeling that some common law principles ·. might provide a restraint on the arbitrary exercise of power.12 The.success of the Commons in opposing the monopolies reflected and justified this faith. 13 ''10 Garcliner, History. IV, p.48. 11Sir WflJ.iam Holdsworth, A History of English I.aw (London: Methuen and Co.,- Ltd., 192.3, 14ols v .), V, pp.428-429. 12Ibid, p.435. 13Ibid1 p.436. -Yet William Noy•s proposal to question the referees was not finally adopted. Having made the decision to examine the monopolies in general, the Commons 'turned to a more obvious and accessible as pect of the problem. On February twentieth the patent £or inns held by Sir Giles Mompesson was sent to the committee or gr:ievances.14 Here was a glaring evil whose investigation would not grate on the King's nerves, as an inquir;y into the actions of the referees almost certainly would have. The notorious Mompesson, a member of the Commons, bad been granted the patent for inns in 1617. · He was ma.1Tied to Catharine, the daughter or Sir John st. John or Lydia.rd Tregooze. Catharine's older sister, Barbara, ws the wife of Edward Villiers, Buckingham's balf•brother. Thus it was that Mompesson came to suggest bis scheme to tho favorite, and.to get his help in approving it.15 Actually, the idea itself seemed sound enough to require little ·aid. Mompesson proposed to bring innkeepers under control by establishing a com mission with the poYer to grant licenses to inns•. Such an arrange ·mentvould protect the traveller from the exorbitant prices so often olui.rged for food and lodging. Since it vas plain that justices of the peace did not have the right.to awrd such licenses, the plan was based on the justices or assize, the common law·judges. Their l4spedding, Bacon. II, p.426. 15J..ee and Stephens (eds. ) , .film, XIII, PP• 588-589. 53 function would be to validate with their signatures licenses drawn up by the commissioners. But even their authority ws in doubt, so the matter was referred to Ba.con, who ·was at that time attorne1 general. No.t wanting to make the decision- alone; Bacon requested the collaboration of three other judges. Thia panel returned a re port unanimously favoring the �lan.16 Several.other independent officials approved the pia,n for its convenience, and even Coke ad• mitted�that it was good.in lav.17 Baron Ellesmere, the Lord Keeper of tho Seal, was dying and refused to pass·the patent, forcing James to pers�nally order the seal to be affixed to the document.18 The patent, which \JS.a granted in V.arch or 1617, authorized Mom.pesson to keep one-firth of the finos and rents collected from the licens ing or inns, with the rest going to the King. As a further com pensation for his labor, Sir Giles wao appointed Surveyor and Licens� er or Inns.19 It was soon apparent that no one but Mompesson and his band vould derive any benefit from this monopoly. The-patentees vere interested solely in enriching themselves. Thay were responsible to no one a.nd sold licenses to any innkeeper who could pay the price, i60a.rdiner; Histpu, IVJ. pp.2•3. 17Ibid1 pp.3•4• l8-Jbid, p.3. l9Greene, (ed.), CSPD1 VIII, p.439. 54 regardless or hov indecent the inn he kept might be. The many ab uoea were made abundantly clear in the course of tho House's investigation. On February nineteenth Sir Edvard Giles made these preliminary charges against. Mompessont 1) Any man who takes in his neighbor's horse on market c:1q· is questioned and retched by a quo wrranto. 2 ) Every man setting up even a post at his door loses his prescription. 3) Travellers are burdened by high pricea.20 Mompesson was ordered to l:ring his patent to the Commons at tvo o:clock the next day, February twentieth. ·an.this .day Mompesson•s examiners immediately swe.mped him with accusations. In asking the House to consider what motives Mompesson might have had in seeking the patent, Sir William Stroude said• that "there appears no other causo but his own private gain"�21 John Drake told or a.n inn in · which a notorious murder and robber;y were to have been committed. Those involved were indicted for conspiracy and imprisoned, but the innkeeper merely sec�d a new patent and kept his disorderly house open. Justices of the peace in the area were powerless to end the abuse.22 �ONotestein, Relf, and Simpson (eds.), Deoo.tes, VI, p.252. 21 Ibid, p.256. 22Ibid. 55 A typical mothod of extortion was for an agent to trick an innocent alohousekeeper into becoming an innkeeper. On February twenty-first Richard Weston, member for Lichfield, told this story of an innocent man named Cooke and an agent named Ferret. Cooke, an alehousekeeper of fifty-eight years standing, was approached by Ferret, who asked for lodging. Cooke replied that he had never entertained horse, nor did he have room for the man. Claiming to be in great distress and in need of help, the agent begged to be taken in for the night. Falling for the ruse, the honest Cooke finally agreed, whereupon Ferret immediately accused him of keep-. ing a hostelry \lithout license. The alehousekeeper vaa forced to go to London and sp.end a great deal of money before being cleared of these false cha.rges.23 Sir Edward Coke· then brought in a report in 'Which he stated that the inn patent shoved that ns it was ill.in the project so it was worse in the execution. It w.s a commission of the first im• pression without any precedont. And though the ground were a reformation of disorders in inns, it proved rather a deforma.tion.24 The most grievous o.f the nine offenses for which Coke cited Mompes son were: 2Jibia, II, pp.113-114. 24Ibid., P• 112. .. 1) Circumventing justices of the peace by getting justices of assize to sign his licenses. 2) Causing a proclamation to go out for a private cause, namely point number one above• . .3) Using antiquated laws to vex the populace. 4) Selling licenses· to vicious alohousekeepers. 5} Worst of all, threatening a justice of the peace a.nd passing off as legitimate one license signed by a begga� and.another signed by a drunkaro.25 .After hearing these charges it was tmanimously agreed by the House that Sir Giles Mompesson constituted a grievance to the Coiri:mon vealtu.26 The referees vere mentioned once again when Sir Francis Seymour opined that they could not be blameless, but that it was up to the House to decide whether or not to consider their oonduct.27 Following the investigation of Mompesson the House turned its attention to the patent for alehouses. The patentees were ostens ibly Dixon and .Almon, with court hangers-on like Christopher Villiers in the background. These patentees also were out to collect all the booty they could, {:Jelling licenses to alehousekeepers, unruly or not, who could afford to buy permission to break the le.w. Dur• 25Ibid, pp.112•113. 26Ibig, VI, p.257. 27.t.!'wit II, p.113. '11 ing the discussion or this patent the name of Sir Francis Hichal.l frequontly arose� He wa accused of having used his powrs to support corruption.28 In a.nswr to these charges Michell hmlded in a. defense of his act.ions in which he ac.id that his conduct had been approved lrJ la-wyers of good standing, that he hud acted with out ma.lice, and that the fact of his having to appear be.fore the House should be punishlient enough.29 The Commons vasn•t listening. MicheU•s olaim that, he had not beaone acquainted with the patent until after its approval was true enough. He was not guilty of projecting the patent, but he had played a oojor part in a.11 of the abusea.30 Michell got his fair share of the loot e.nd wrote letters authorizing extortions.31 He -was al3o guilty of increasing his victims' cooperativeness by saying that what he wanted \J'a.S also tho will of the King.32 After hoe.ring of tl1ese deeds, Cok"O moved that Michell bo oent to the tower. Smelling blood, other members of the House shoutod .for more save1•a punishment. It was suggested that he be deeraded from the knighthood and exempted t:rom the general pardon at the end 0£ the session. In the end, no additional penaltico Yere placed .::,n. },!.iohell, W1d he was me1·oly sent to the Tovor, as though that 2S"Gardiner, History� IV, p.42. 29Notestein, Reli', and tlL"'ll)SOn (eds.), .Debates, VII , pp.500•501. JO�, VI, p.265. 31Gardiner, Histo;ry� IV, p.42. 32Notestein, Rell, and Sitlpson (eds.), Doootos, II, p.128. were not indignity enougb• .33 The Oorm.10ns' treatn1ent of Michell ws very high-1:8-nded and directly opposed to the laws of England. In the heat of battle Coke must have momentarily misplaced hie legendary store of lmowledge. When a doubt was raised as to the Commons•1; right to imprison Michell for offenses not conn:dtted against the House itself, Noy and William. Ha.kevill were sent to the Tower to look for precedenta• .34 They returned to tell the House that it had overstepped its authority. The Commons had the right to deal judicially vith those \.Ibo bad offended against the House, but could not deal with those \ «39 hath no counsel but. parl:iament. Impeachment w.s the natural weapon of James•s parliaments. It vas used in 1621 to make even the greatest mininsters of state responsible to the law. Indeed, impeachment can be said to have made substantial contributions to the cause of constitutional government. It established the doctrine ot ministerial responsibility to the lawt applied this to all min isters of the Crow•� helped to �intain the supremacy of tho !i6Garclin�rt Historz. IV, pp.43.:44• .37Spedding1 Bacon, II, p.434. · .38Tannor, Constitutional Documentst·p.321. 39Noteatein; Relf, and Simpson, (easJ, Delntes, v, p.185. 60 law over all.40 Precedents were cited in the House for dealing with those who did injury to tho Commonwealth through theiz- exploitation or pa.tents of monopoly. During the reign or Richard II a York merchant named' Ellis abused a patent so heavily that other merchants complained to the Ooillllons. The Commons passed th& complaint to the Lords,. who ruled that Ellis should be sent to the Tower and fined at the · King's discretion.41 Dealt with more severely' during the reign of Edwrd III w.s Richard Lyon, who had a.bused a dispensation to transport staple commodities. Hews sent to the Tower• barred from holding of.fice, was never to come near the King, and was to be disenfranchised at the King's pleasure.42 In the proceedings against Mompesson he was charged with the abuse of three different pa.tents of momopoly. · The first was the familiar patent ror inns. The second was a patent for gold and silver thread, which w.s said to be "portentous in pursuit and execution most grievousu.43 The idea had been to establish the manufacture of gold and silver thread in England. The patentees •agreed to import z5000 of bullion a year so that Englal'Jd•s oupply 40Holdsworth, liistory. I, p •.382. �Notestein,. Rell',- and Simpson (eds.), ,Debates, VI, pp.307-308. p 3 �·lbifil; p.41.•. �. 61 would not suffe1·. Ycmpeason was not the patentee but rather a com missioner with the power to punish those who infringed on the actual pa.tentee•s rights. He sorely abused his po�er• often throwing or enders into prison and announcing his intention to let them rot there.44 Mompesson projected the third patent tor which he was cited. lie had convinced James that some Crow lands might improp• erly be in private hands. The King empowered )fompasson to seek these out and to fine any who would not yield their property on de mand.45 This was potentially the most dangerous or all the patents and aroused a great deal of;indignation, for no one•s land would be safe from a scomidrel possessing such powrs. On Ma.rah 26, 1621, judgment was delivered against Sir Giles Mompesson. He w.s to be degraded from the knighthood, imprisoned, and was never to come within twelve miles of.the court. His lands and goods vere confiscated, and he was fined ?1101000. He was to remain forever in outlatJrY, tobe barred from office, and was never to be included in the general pa.rd.on. As an af"terthought James banished him forever from the reaJ.m.46 The earnestneos of the Commons 1n dealing vith Mompesson shooked Buckingham into the realization that he might easily fall into trouble himsell'. Ile could.not possibly deny bis intimate as• 62 sooiation t-lith the pa.tents of Mompasson, but he could shunt t�e .;: .blame off on someone else before the investigation reached him. It dii.dot n seem likely that Buckingham would be investigated, since that would have been tantamount to attacking the honor of' tho King. Nevertheless, the favorite wasted little tins in attempting to ex tricate himself'•rrom a bad situation. On March third, the day Mompesson escaped, Buckingham made a speech before the House of Lords at vhich Coke was pr�sent.47 Buckingham admitted having in troduced Mompesson to the King and having supportedhis patents, thinking they were for the good or the country. \-Jhen he bad re• cently asked ¥.ompesson about the inns pa.tent, the latter had pro tested that there vere no abuses. Unwilling, a.she said, to desert a friend in adversity, Duckingha.m concluded that if the patents were indeed a source of evil, then the blame must lie 'With the ref� erees. !Jl The question of the referees and their role in the affairs 0£ the monopolies would soon have bee."l broached even if' Buckingham had remained silent. It wuld have been stupid and hypocritical for Parliament not to have examined the high officials vho had sanctioned the abuses of 1-'Dmpesson and others. The security of the people depended on rooting out this evil in high places, if it were - ______,.______47Gardiner1 llistQr_y, IV, p.45. 48Notestein, Relf, and Simpson (eds.), Debate§, II, p.161. 63 there.49 Since Noy had unsuccessfully proposed to examine the referees there had been only one further call to investigate them. It had come from Lionel Cra.nfield, ,mo as a practical businessman OpPosed the monopolies because th� disarranged the course or trade. 50 Cran field realized as well that corruption or the type engendered by the momopolies vas a hindrance to the government and so helped expose it and supported corrective measures. Yet he was also the Lord Treasurer, and as a Crown man was active in the defense of the YJ.ng. He insisted on �e responsibility or the referees511theraby sacrificing the royal ministers on the altar of the King•s honor. Ironically, Cranfield himself was impeached in 1624. On February twenty-fourth and twenty- seventh Cranfield pressed for an investigation, but the Commons did · not respond. But he would soon have his vish. On March eighth the complaint against Mompesson was sent up to the Lords, and along with it a demand for a.n inquiry into the re.ferees. 52 The attack on the referees posed quite a problem for James. The revival of' impeachment, ospeoially w'hen directed at some of his highest officials, was a direct challenge to the whole concept of monarchy he had inherited from the Tudors., Not within memory had a minister been regarded as responsible to anyone but the mona.roh. 53 '%.?JGardiner, ,IU.stocy. IV, p.45. 50Ibid, p.46. ;1willson, fri;yy Councillor,2, p,250. 2Gar Thus, the King resolved to resist the encroachments or Parliament. The Commons had scheduled a conference.vi.th the Lords for 1-hrch ninth. In an attempt to forestall this moating James sent a personal message to the CoLllllOns. The messenger was oordia;Uy received, but the Hous�refused to postpone or'cancel the conf"erence.54 At a conference with the Lords .on March eighth the Commona bad presented its case against Mompesson to the Lords. The presentation of the �o patents upon vhich the House ws basing its case had been ,entrusted to three leading members. Thomas Crew had the Pa.tent for Inns, fleneage Finch the Gold and Silver Thread Patent, and W1JJ1am Hakewill the Patent for Concealments. Sir Edwin Sandye expanded • th�ir presentations, and Coke gave precedents and ma.de the oonolu sion. 55 This conference, however, -was not successful because Crew, Finch and lfake'will railed to name the referees for the respective grievous patents.56 Coke was incensed, and so a neu conference was held �fa.rob ninth at which the nameo of the referees vere satisfact orily aired.57 The March ninth session -was an obvious attack on the referees1 and so James m1derstandably but f'utilely tried to avert it. His failure merely underscored the Commons• s determin• �Ibid,. P•50 •• 5 Spedding, Bacon, ·II, pp.434-435. �Ibid, p.436. · · 5 �bid, · p.4.39. · ' 65 ation to have its way in this matter. Tho re.ferees were summoned, and at a conference Ba.con and Vin count .Mandeville w1·e treated 1--athor harshly, causing Ducldnghren to once again become alarmed. If the referees were not ilrimtm.e., . then he might well be the next target. He began to pressure James to dissolve -the Parlfa.mont. But then he vus set straight bi ,Tohn W:tt lirullS) the shrewd Dean or Westm.nster, who advised the favorite not to fight the current bu.t to swim vith it. 58 Accordingly, Buck ingham turned on all the ruonopolis,ts, including his brothcJra Christ opher and Edward Villiers, saying that "the sain.o father who begot them that wel�e the offenders begot a third that vould get thou to be :>unished11 • 59 The conversion of Buckingham '\.1<:1.s a boon to the Commons, It proceeded with tho Bill of Monopolies and the fu.peach Inent of Mompesson �d made no further mei::ition of the referees. The right to question high state officials had been won, and therfl wao no reason to needlessly alienate Jamee by pursuing it. l!ore pren sing wtt:3 the need to pass a bill tbat would prevent any mi..-tlotor from over aeain poasessilig suoh authority. 60 Lord Chancellor Bacon was subsequently i..i,;peached, but not on the basis of his conduct ns a. referee. Yet there can be little 'S�ria.rdiner, ,Histor;r. IV, pp.5�.51. 59ifotestein1 Relf, e.nd Bimpson, {eds.), Debo.tea, IV, p.149. 60furdiner, J�sto;rx. IV, pp.54.-55. 66 doubt that bitterness over his approval or the patents helped to hasten Bacon•a do'Wllfa.ll.61 His case marked the beginning of a trend whereby counsellors or officers of the Crow who advised the King unconstitutionally were taken to task by either the courts or as semblies of estates.62 Bacon li.>a.S finally impeached on the charge or accepting bribes from those whose cases he decided. He did in fact accept gifts and money, but there is little evidence that they influenced.,his deoisions.63 The Parliament of 1621 did not pass a bill against the monopolies. Toward the end of the year the Commons sent a bill to the Lords; tvho rejected it. The bill vould have-provided a general prohibition on future monopoly grants of' nearly all 'types. Ml.ny in the House of Lords favored correcting past and present grievances, but thought that to provide for the future, as this bill purported to dot vould be an intringement·upon the King's prerogative. Others thought the King would find the bill's generality offensive. They believed that only specific abuses should be dealt vith. Furthermore, auoh a bill vould shov James in an unfavorable light� perhaps causing the people to think him lax in redressing grievances. Somo Lords believed that the bill was perfectly proper and should be·approved.64 While sen- oiaa.rdiner, Histo:cy. IV, p.65. · 62spedding, -- Ba.con, II, p./44.3. 63Qardiner, filstorx, IV, p.81. 64samu.e1 R. Gardiner, Notes of the Del:ntes in the House or Lord 1621 {Westminster: J.B. Nichols o.nd Sons, 1870, pp.102-104. 67 timent favoring a. monopoly law of come ldnd seemed to be strong, disagreement over different aspects of the 1621 measure doomed it to defeat. The Lords did appoint a committee of eight to "set down the heads for a new bill touching monopolies11.65 It.was de cided to hold a conference to tell Comt1ons why the bill had been rejected, and to advise them in dmfting a new lav. It was highly unusual tor the Lords to account so quickly for the rejection of a bill1 indicating that they, too, attached great importance to the monopoly question.66 Despite its failure to legislate against tho monopolies, the o.ccomplishments or the Parliament of' 1621 vere real and important. This Parliament stood up to the arbitrary power of the monarchy and van a resounding victory. It asserted the right of the.people to have redress against royal agents and o££ioial.s, and paved the wa;r .for the Statue ot Monopolies of 1624, which gave statutory .force to these principles of redress. These achievements constituted a telling blow struck in the cause of constitutional government. The Statue of Monopolies vas passed by the House of Icrds and then by the House of Commons in May or 1624. This law -was the most important legislative achievement or Ja.rn.es•a reign.67 A heading 65Ibid,. p.105. <>;rhig. p.106. 6 Price� p..lish Patents, p.33. 68 attached to the Statue called it "an a.ct concerning Monopolies and dispensations with penal laws and the forfeitures thareof".68 The Statue of Monopolies is divided into fourteen sections. Section number one explains from whence the Cpmmons and Lords drev their justification for presuming to pass such a law. It states that in 1610 in the Book of Bgtmt:v; James did "publish in print to the vhole realm and to all posterity that all grants or monopolies"•69 or benefit or penal laws, of dispensations, and of the right to 001.ll pound for forfeiture were "contrary to your �jesty1s Lawsn .70 Furthermore, James had e:x:pressly commanded that "no Suitor should presume to moven71 him £or a grant of that sort. But even though . James bad thus declared monopolies and the like to be unacceptable, many such grants ha.d been unlawfully obtained "upon misinformationa and untrue pretenses of public good •• • tp the great grievance and inconve¢enoe"72 o.f the �bjects. This being the case, the Commons �:Lords thought it proper to take steps to remedy the situation. Thereupon, the lav1 declared utterly void all monopolies and all commissions• grants, licenses, charters and letters patents heretofore made or granted, or heretofore to be mde or granted ••• for the sole b�g, selling, IrAld.ng1 working, or using �f anything within this realm or the dominion of Wales;l3 b8Ibig, p.135, 6 9Ibid. 7omci.' 71-Ib.!!l.¼.S•·· 7;;rbid. 7 Ibid. 69 Grants giving to the patentee the powers of promising benefit of a lav not yet judged and of acting contrary to "the tenor or pur• port· or any lavn74 weN declared to be of no effect and utterly void. ttAll proclamations, inhibitions, restraints, Loilwarrants of assistancett7S tending to erect or strengthen any or the above forbidden· categories vero also prohibited. Thus, all grants of the types described above in existence in 16.24 vere declared null and void; and none wre ever again to be granted. Sections two, three, and £our were the most important parts of the Statue of Monopolies. They de.fined the law- and embodied the immediate and practical consequences or that definition.76 Part two stated that the force and validity or all monopolies, letters patents, and other taboo grants "shall be forever here after ex.a.mined, heard, tried, and determined by and according to the common lav or this realm and not othenrl.se".77 The third sec• tion stated that an:, person, group., or body politic or corporate shall be deprived or using airy monopoly or other grant. nor could "anyliberty, power, or faculty grounded or pretended to be ground ed078 upon apatent be exercised. The fourth section wa.a the Statue's most important sub- 74Ibid• pp.135•136. 't5Ibid. 76uo-rdon, 1-1onopolies by; Patents, p.9. 77Price, .§nr..lish Honopglio�� p •.1.36. 78Ibig. 70 .division. I·t; "W"aa crucial bocauso it wns intended as the creat bul wark of the public right against abusive monopolists. The la.v de• olared that, beginning forty days aftor the close of the Parliar.ent or 1624, any citizen whoso goods or chattels vere seized or detained on pretext of a monopoly or other grant could sue for relief in any. court of the oom.rn-.:>n lo:w-. Actions against offenders under the 1624 Statue uould be heard in the courts of the King•s Bench, Common Pleao · and. E..�ehequer. .\n aggrieved subject \-.US entitled to recover three times the damages sustained at the hands or the orfender, and double the costs. A defendant ·in such an action who unle:wfully attempted to stay or delay judgment, or execution of judgment, would be punish ed U..'1der the statue or Provision and Fraetrunire m..1.d.e during the reign of Richard II. Sections i'ive through fourteen merely created exceptions to the law. Som:e 01' the cxcoptions were legitimate; so:ne were not. Even a fem personal supervisor-/ patents -were maintained. The fifth section provided a nccossa.ry bon0ficiul c;co:raption. Tho fi�st and J true inventors of any new I!'.arm.er of nnnufacture were allowed to keep their lcttoro patents or era.nts of privilego, but only on tho con dition tbat they wore not opJ:--,osod. to the lmr and did not ra.ine prices• 71 hurt trade, or proire generally inconvenient. Such pa.tents could .. remain in f'orce for up to tventy-one years from the date of' their bestowal•. Any letters pa.tent speoi.fy"mg n longer term or years would have to be altered to conform to the new limit.Section six confirmed the continued validity of invention pa.tents having terms or fourteen years or leas.· The continued validity or any grant, privilege, power or authority confirmed by an act of Parliament was assured by section seven for as long as that a.ct shall remain in force. The pollers vested in ·the justices of the various courts by the King., his heirs., or successors, was the concern of the eighth subdivision. These �ustices retained their right "to hear and de termine offenses do�e against any penal statuen79 and "to compound for the forfeitures of any penal statue.•. after plea pleaded by the party defendant".80 Section nine of the statue of Monopolies contained vhat turned out to be the most important exemptions. It declared that the aot did not extend to e:r:ry corporations, comptlllies, or .fellowship of acy art, trade, occupation or mistery, or to any companies or societies of merchants within this realm, erected for the maintenanceA1enlargement, or ordering of any trade or cerohandise. 1 ;rb1r1, p.1:39. 86 Ibid. 8_1lbig. 72 This provided an escape clause so that monopoly grants of the ob jectionable type previously' ma.de to individuals could now.be made 1ega.lly to chartered corporations and companies. On this foundation Charles I built anentirely new system of patents. Section ten allow-ed to remain in force all patents and other grants or privilege concerning printing, the digging of saltpeter or ma.king or gunpowder, and the casting of ordnance or ordnance shot. The same was true in the eleventh part of alum mining. In section twelve the coal monopoly or the Host.men of New oastle-upon•Tyne w.s exempted from thee.ct, as were e:rants f'or licensing taverns and for the selling or retailing of wine. Sec• tions thirteen and fourteen validated the persona1 domination of glass-making by Sir Robert Mansell, or the transporting of' calf'... skins by James 1-hxwell, of the making of smalt by Abraham Baker, and of the melting and ca.sting of iron ore by Edward Lord Dudley. The Statue of Monopolies or 1624 occupies a prominent place in the economic history of Engl.and. It was the first nationn.l patent lav to contain all the essentials, and thereby made a large contribution to England's later technical progresa.82 In retrospeot1 the conflict between James and his parliaments 82Sir John CL:�pha.m, A Concise Economic History or Ezw..land from the Earliest Ti:l:les to 1750 (Cambridge: Univeroity Press, 1949.), p.265. 73 vas inevitable, Political trends in early seventeenth-century England favored the rural gentry, vhich began to dominate ParJ.iament and owed its allegiance to the common lav. In such an atmosphere Ja.mas•s concept ot divine right monarchy w.s certain to be contested. It was merely a question or hov the opposition vould most effectively manli"est itself. James had inherited from Elizabeth a grievous monopoly situation, which he :frequently- promised to alleviate but never did. The continued obnoxiousness or the patents caused Parlia ment to protest them constantly, leading to the events of' 1621, when autocracy in England we dealt its fatal blov. Thus, the unhappy history of James•s patents had a happy ending. Through their per• sistent offensiveness the monopolies became the instrument with which constitutional government in E:ngla.nd w.s preserved and stre.ngth ened. pIBILOGRAPflX PRIMARY SOURCES Brown, Horatio F. (ed.). Calopchr of State Papers, Venetian Series. London: "Norfolk Chronicle" Co., Ltd., 19001 J2 vols. From the CSPY I ws able to get a unique outside view of James in 1606. Foster, Eliza.beth Read (ed.) prgceedings in Parliament, 1610. New Haveni Yale University Press, 1966, 2 vols. This recent publication supersedes other editions of the delntes of' Ja.mas 1 a first parlia.,.ilent. It is easy to use and was a vital source of information. I used it quite extensively in discussing the Parliament or 1610. Gardiner, Samuel R. (ed.) Motes of the Debates in the Hoy.so 2t: ,k)rd.s, 166]. Westminster: J.B. Uichols and Sons, 1870. From Gardiner's edition of the deb9.tes I learned the various ob jections to the 1621 monopo:cy- bill vhich caused its defeat. Greene, Mary Anne Everett (ed.). Calendar of State Pg.pars, Dq mestio Series. London: Longman, Brow, Groen, Longman and Roberts, 1857, 12 vols. Mcilwain, Charles II. The fo;I.itical Wgrks or James I, Ca.µibri,dg�: .Harvard University Press, 1918. I drew very freely upon Mcllwain1s excellent introduction for James's political beliefs and their oienifica.nce for tlle monopolies. lfotestein, Wallace, Frances Relf, and Hartley Simpson (eds.). Comm.ens Debates, 1621. Nev Haven: Yale University Press, 1935, 7 vols. This invaluable set contains numerous contemporary accounts of the proceedings or the Parliament of 1621. The accounts cited in the paper are, those by Pym, nxn (an a.non;yt10us compila.tion), Bolasyse, Hovard, Holland and tho Book or COinrlitteos. The English in these journals ws the easiest to decipher. I used them in discussing tho successful attack-on the monopolies, particularzy the impeach ments of 11ompesson and :Michell, vhich .demonstrated the extent or the abuses and CommonsI determination to end them. From the volume containing pa.tent grants and miscellaneous papers pertaining to the monopolies I got Michell.t a petition and defense. Prothero, G!l w.·Selact Statues a.nd other ConstitutioMl Doc3:!!!Wnts illqstr4tive o.f the Roigna of EJ;izaqqth and Jqmes I. OXford: The Clarendo� Preas, 1898. Tanner, J. R,. Constitutional Documents or James*' 1603-1625. Cam bridges University,Press, 19.30. In his preface Tanner gave vha.t I considered to be a fair estimate of James I. Willson, David II. (ed.). The Parlia:mento.r,y DiAEY: or Robert &m.t, J606-1607� Minneapolis& 'The University of llinnoaotn Press, 19.31. Thia book w.s indispensable 1n discussing the Parlio.mentar,y session of 16061 vhen tho first opposition to the monopolies manifested it self'. BIBLIOGRAPl!X Sr.GC!lDARY SOURCES Akrigg, o. P. v. Jncobeo.n Paceant. Oarubridgo: lhrvard University · Press, 1962. There is -not a great deal in this work, but it, did yield i11i"o!"ma.t ion on Buold.ngh?,m's character and his rise to prominence. Clap.ham, Sir John. A Concise Eco110r,dc History Qf' En.gland, F;:orn ,the fqrliest Ttines to 1750. Ca.mbridget University f'l'ess, 1949. Clark, G. The Wealth of England frou 1496�1760. London: Ox• u. ' f'ord University Preas., 1947. . CUnningham, William. The Growth of Englj.sh Indunt:ry and Commo?'.'ce ?,,tl I'1odern Tim.9.�. Ca.Llbriclge: University Fross, 1912., 3 vols. Cunn;i.nghrun offered insightc into the cconoraic ideas of Jo.mes, o.nd also into the reaction of the English people to regulation of this kind. Friis., Astrid. AJ: �rdiner, Samu.el R. Ilist917.r of F:ngJ..,md, 1603-16!+6. London: Long man., Green and Co., 188.3, 10 vols. Voltl!i:e four or Gardiner's ,Histor:t was invaluable. His account , provided the frc.m.ework for my t:reatnent of the Parliament of 1621 and its actions in relation to the monopolists and referees. Gordon, Jchn WfJUam ?1Qnonolies lzy: Patents and the Sta.tuablo Rer-iedies Available to the F)ib11,q. London: Stevens and Sons, The Principal contributions of Gordon's book were a reprinting of the Book of Boun;tx, comments on the attitude of James a.a he assumed the throne, and information on the Statue of Monopolies or 1624. Hill, Christopher. Century of Revolution, 160J-1Vlt• ·Edinburgh: Thomas Nelson and Sons, Ltd., 1961. Hill's short account of the monopolies conveys very well their ob noxious ubiquity, and also offors some useful facts and comments. Holdsworth, SirWilliam. A IIistg;cy; of EJJglioh !mi• London: Meth uen & Co., Ltd., 1923, 14 vols. From Holdsworth I was able to get valuable facts about Sir F.dward Coke, including the nature of his legal views and the conflkts with James which a..fi'ooted the course of his career. Hulme, Harold. The Life or Sir John Eliot. Mew York: New York University Press, 1957. Lee, Sir Sydney, and Sir Leslie Stephen (eds.). The Diotiontll'Y st rlg.tionp.l Bis2grap& (1949 ed.), llll and.XX. The DNB had detailed information on Buckingham and espocio.lly Mompession not available elsewhere. It made clear the connection between Mompesson and Bucldngham. Lipson, Ephriam. The Economic Histor;x: of Engl.and. London; A & 0 Black, Ltd., 1931, 3 vola. Lipson's third volume contains a gcod account of the monopolies. It supplemented Price\3 accounts very nicely, o.nd also added much to the account of the Cockayne Project. I relied heavily on Lipson when explaining the different types of monopolies in Chapter I. Notestein, Wllllace. The Winning oi" tho !!litiutive by the Commong. London: Oxford University Press, 1924. Notestein's excellent essay lucidly explained the deveJ.opment of the dispute between James and his Parliaments, and showed how the Commons was able to emerge the winner. Price, Willirun H. The EnpJ.ish Pa.tents of Honop0q. Uew Yorks Houghton, Mifrlln and Co., 1906. Price's book is the best I h:lve four..d on.this subject. Because of tho colilprohensiva coverage it attenpts it is soraetitl.es sketchy, especially when doc.ling with tho various parliamentary actions ag ainst the monopolieo. I used Price for the politica.l history of the po.tents during tho reigns of Elizabeth o.nd James. His reprinting of the Statue of Monopolies was very convenient. Sped.ding, J0100s. An Account of the Life and Times of Francis Baco,n. Boston: Jiou._';hton, Osgood and Company, 18781 2 vols. Spedd:tng•s biograpr..y or Bacon proved vory usoful. His account of' the Parliament or 1621 contributed much to my ow version. Supple, Barry E. Commercial Crisis and Change in England, 1600-16lt6z. Cambridge: University Press, 1959. Supple GU.pplied some good ideas about the Cockayne Project, es pecially concern:i.l1g its fuilure. U�in, George. �ndll§tti41 Organization in the 16th and 17th Centuria§_,. London: Cass and Cor.ipa.ny, 1957. Unwin, George.· Studies in Economic ltlstor;x:: The Collootod Egper4 Qf Goore,a Unwin. London: Ma.m:rl.llrul and Co., Ltd., 1927. Willson, fuvid H. King James VI and I. Uew Yorks Henry Holt and Corapa.ny, 1956. From Willson.I got a phyoic..'11. description of Buckingham and also some insight into his relationship with the King. Willson, David H. .Dle Priyy C9uncjJ,lors in the House or C.9Jr-r.1ons, 1604::162,2. Minneapolis: Tho University of 14.i.nnesota. Pres;3, 1940. AUTOBIOGRAPHY or WILLIAM CHARLES THOMPSON I was born on August 15t 1944, in Atlanta, Georgia, but have rosidod in Danville, Virginia, all my life. I ws educated in the Danville Public Schools, graduating from George Washington High School in June, 1962. In the i'all or that year I entered. IIa.mpden... Sydney College, from which I received the Bachelor of Arts Degree in 1966. I then went to the University of Richmond for a. year of graduate study in history, co.."llpleting the classroom hours necessary for the 1-nster's degree. In September, 1967, I joined tho faculty of Averett College, Danville, Virginia, as an Instructor of History.